There is a problem with this line of thought. If the two powers have rarely interacted in the past century, then clearly the Federation has been staying in its own lane.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
There is a problem with this line of thought. If the two powers have rarely interacted in the past century, then clearly the Federation has been staying in its own lane.
However the Federation in that time was, how did Kirk put it, 'on a million worlds and spreading out', either that was hyperbole on Kirk's part or some truth to the vastness of the Federation. How would the Federation feel if the Klingon empire was spreading closer and closer to its borders?
(Being devil's advocate. I would rather be a Federation citizens than a Klingon one, preferably living on Risa
).
(Being devil's advocate. I would rather be a Federation citizens than a Klingon one, preferably living on Risa
).
Might be blame for the Augment virus and the way the Federation absorbed other warrior races in.
Also, I give Jehovah's Witness' coffee when they come by.
It was a thousand, not a million. In any case, in this sense the Klingons remind me of their original inspiration, the Russia. Russia always cries and complains when the countries they've border with want to join NATO or EU, and in the case of Ukraine, did quite a bit more.
Nope. We've seen nothing more than a couple of ships. The first ship was doing the classic Trek thing where they beamed down to repair a society that they or some other space travllers hurt. Then they were in a hostile situation with aliens who firmly believe the Federation to be little better than a Borg like race, using "We come in peace" as a lure to assimilate them. It's what that whole "Remain Klingon" thing was and why T'Kuvma reacted the way he did when Georgiou said "We come in peace". Georgiou, in best Kirk or Picard fashion was trying to TALK to the Klingons. She was also clear about Starfleet's policy "Starfleet doesn't fire first". One person wanted to fire, and the rest of the crew looked at her like she was crazy. Because they live in society that doesn't do that. Too bad they're facing a warlike race who views us an invading force.
The second ship is developing top secret tech to be used in the war, and may be possibly top secret itself. Beyond that, we don't know jack or shit about the rest of the Federation, Starfleet or anything else about this time period. We don't know or have any real context for what's going on with Discovery yet as that's part of the unfolding story. So no, people in a war, acting like people in a war and low level lighting is not a "dystopia". We don't know what the state of the war is, who's winning, who's losing.
From the 24th century Utopia:
"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."
Tell me, what is this "vision", where is it stated? Tell me specifically what Roddenberry originated because let's be clear about what he did not originate or create: optimistic, hopeful futures. That was a staple of sci-fi long before he ever got there as evidenced by Space Patrol, Rocky Jones, Tom Corbett, the Legion Of Super Heroes, among a few in the forward looking Rocket / Atomic Age. The original Star Trek was Space Patrol with a better budget and more mature stories.
Pretty much the only thing he did that those older properties didn't was show that those bright futures also had some minorities in them. Except societal progress was already giving minorities and women greater representation across the board, so he didn't even originate that and it would've happened regardless. So since we've established that he didn't create hopeful or optimistic futures, and society was already giving minorities greater visibility and rights, what's left that he actually came up with on his own? What's *his* vision? Because I'm not seeing a "Roddenberry Vision" so much as some concepts that were already around that he and his followers think he originated.
And some fans think that anything that is even slightly more serious than an episode of Teen Titans Go! is "dark", "gritty" and "dystopian" because they don't understand the concept of just regular old "serious". Which is what the bulk of t.v. drama has been since t.v. started. You not liking the characters on this show doesn't mean they're not complex or multifaceted. They've been about as complex or multifaceted as any other Trek protagonists by the third episode. So enough with the non-stop pants pissing about this. They're telling their story in their way and they don't care if the shift leader at Taco Bell has a different idea on how to do the job they've been doing for years. They're gonna do what they're gonna do and crying about it on the internet isn't going to change that.
Goddamn right.
And kept them hooked on drugs in order to maximize his return on the trafficking. Oh, and he also re-enforced the idea that they weren't desirable to men unless they were pretty in order to get them to take the drug.
Yep. Classic Trek was just an updated version of Space Patrol and Rocky Jones, two shows that were set in futures that were better than today. These futures weren't perfect and neither were the people who lived in them, especially on the rough and tumble frontier. Hell, the machine used in "Dagger Of The Mind" and "Whom Gods Destroy" was a straight up lift of the machine used in Space Patrol to rehabilitate criminals.
"Man needs struggle" or some other variation on that. Except I no longer wholly believe that those were "flies in the ointment" as much as a straw for him to grasp in order remove a system he personally didn't like or wasn't comfortable with. Here he is extolling the virtues of Federation society and it has yet to yield him that ideal world, yet on other worlds, foreign and alien ideas and modes of living have yielded that and he doesn't want that. He want's his way to yield that. Except when he doesn't. See "The Ultimate Computer" where technology was about to take a great leap forward.
"The Ultimate Computer" is almost painful to watch today because of it's anti-progress stance. It's like watching the candle stick makers rail against the coming of the electric light, but in this story the electric light goes crazy and kills some people and it's creator has a break down. So instead of taking his clearly ground breaking research and trying to build upon it, the candle stick makers lock it's creator away and say "See, we're better off just sticking with good old candles. Man wasn't meant to have light with the easy push of a switch. He must struggle with matches, sometimes a ladder and sometimes he has to use a long candle lighter or lift some glass, because there are certain things Men must do to remain Men." And yeah, I get the point of people being displaced by tech, the problem is that the story just vilified the tech and didn't offer any meaningful way forward like retraining in other fields which is something that has always been needed when new techs arrive.. Just vilify the tech, get rid of it and never reference it again.
Personally when I watched TNG (before the internet and even now), I didn't see it as a humanist utopia. I took it as the basic premise of the show that now humans were united, more technologically advanced and that most of the human materialistic needs and problems were solved. We are very very far in the future. I figured time, replicators, new technologies would solve many current problems in the world and that, with space travel, having an united earth was possible in the future and convenient for the show. Some kind of UN of space travel. But life on earth is just a side interests for Star Trek (including TNG). The big problems, the adventure, all the violence and danger was in the explorations of space.
When I watch TNG, I don't see any utopia or even an optimistic view of the future. What's happening on earth is not the focus of the show. I see humans (with alien allies) facing dangers, shooting phasers and trying to use their brain to solve problems. While I didn't think about it much, I felt there was conflicts between main characters at least as much as shows like CSI, Sliders, etc. Worf often disagrees about the actions of Picard (usually out of security concerns and his temper). Other main characters often voice their disagreement. There's Federation admiral sometimes causing troubles too. Since they were both a front line exploration/diplomatic ship (probably the best in the fleet) with a military structure and a small group of main characters. It felt natural they had a good working relationship between each others focused on the military duty of space explorations and fighting aliens. Like CSI, Stargate or even military movie with a small military units (navy seal-black ops, etc). They are the best at what they do (like all TV/movie heroes) and manage to always survive every situations. They had different personalities and opinions about many things but they worked well together and were complementary. They had various personal problems (romance for Geordi, integration with humans for Data, controlling his temper for Work and his ambiguous relationship with Humans-Klingons, Troi and her mother, etc) but it was not the main focus of the show since it's sci-fi not day time soap opera.
In general, what I like about TNG is that it was written by people who had something to say about the current state of humanity, our society and our future. I love the adventure, exploration, action and mysteries. When there was moral and ethical dilemma, it felt like all sides and point of view were explored (because different characters had different point of view). Star Trek (especially TNG) was more cerebral than many shows (although more common in Sci-fi) but at the end of it there was a lot of battles, evil aliens and dangers in space. Picard used his brain to get out of many situations, but if it didn't work, it was the phasers.
Last edited:
Human conflict and interpersonal struggles are what help make Star Trek great. I love Gene but his edict that humans in the TNG era don't war with one another even on a personal level and that people from Earth have eradicated almost every vice and negative personality trait from our species by the time Captain Picard first steps onto the bridge of the Enterprise-D is just antiseptic, naive pablum. One reason that so many fans love DS9 is because that series shows us the darker and more textured side of the Federation in a way that even TOS couldn't or wouldn't depict. People will still be people 300 or 400 years from now and no amount of technological advancement, social evolution or contact with other life forms in the far reaches of space will change our basic nature as competitive, prideful and flawed creatures with passions and egos.
We'll have full stomachs and be much healthier creatures who don't have to worry about dying of preventable diseases at an early age, but we'll still be human beings with strong opinions and tempers.
Sure, but they won't become top military officers on the frontline Earth and Federation exploration/diplomatic/defense spaceship.
It's like if CSI was full of jerks or top US army officiers was full of jerks. For top officers, it's more 'Mad Dog' Mattis less Starbuck. If you can't control your temper you have no place on the bridge or at taking any important decision anywhere.
In TNG, there was a lot of difference of opinions between the main characters since it's basically the premise of the show (each situations is viewed at different angles). Worf was always ready to shoot first. One of the doctor had problems with Data. Crusher did an autopsy against the wishes of the family and Picard. Deanna (and Guinan) was always there to help people psychologically, find their path. Etc, etc. The Enterprise was not the led by reality shows participants, employees at fast food restaurant or blue collars who wouldn't know what the words diplomacy, moral and ethics means. We don't want idiots pushing the nuclear button or firing phasers against unknown aliens. Starting wars, planning mutiny against the captain or whatever because they are angry about something (like their best friend dying in the previous episode). It was led by top military officers and diplomats. Certainly, among the best of the best. Think 'Mad Dog' Mattis, not Starbuck.
In that sense, it was more than realistic.
Whether you like it or not as a form of sci-fi entertainment. That's up to you of course. I like Spartacus, 12 Monkeys and Game of Thrones, but Star Trek is solid because it did its own thing instead of becoming a brainless action series or even a dark dystopian future like so many scifi and hollywood productions.
Last edited:
I've just started going through the thread, but count me in as another not on board with tossing out something that makes Trek special. Trek is a beacon. It should be careful to remember that. Or find itself, in time, self-extinguished.
That said, I love the series. I'm more interested in DSC than I have in Trek in a long long time.
That said, I suspect that, in the Babylon 5 vein, no-one is who they seem to be. I don't think the show is as dark as knee-jerk reaction may suggest. I'm fairly certain it's not the Mirror Universe, and I'm hoping it's nothing to do with Section 31 (who are all Starfleet Intelligence rejects who never learned how to play well with others). I think we're getting subjective perspectives from characters, coloring their/our perceptions of each other. I don't think Lorca is a war criminal, but he is a strategist and Starfleet is charged with fighting the Federation's wars when it comes to that. His secret chamber of horrors from last episode is feely revealed to Burnham in this one. When he tells Burnham he knows her, and that is why he's trusting the mutineer, the king-slayer, I want to believe him. The callous security chief died by the sword she lived by.
Here's something I really am curious if I'm right about, and, if I am, it's a spoiler: I don't think the cadet is who she appears to be. She's a great character, and is maybe doing loads for showcasing folks with special needs, but why would they room Starfleet's only ever, maximum security, mutineer with a cadet? I think she's Lorca's plant.
That said, I love the series. I'm more interested in DSC than I have in Trek in a long long time.
That said, I suspect that, in the Babylon 5 vein, no-one is who they seem to be. I don't think the show is as dark as knee-jerk reaction may suggest. I'm fairly certain it's not the Mirror Universe, and I'm hoping it's nothing to do with Section 31 (who are all Starfleet Intelligence rejects who never learned how to play well with others). I think we're getting subjective perspectives from characters, coloring their/our perceptions of each other. I don't think Lorca is a war criminal, but he is a strategist and Starfleet is charged with fighting the Federation's wars when it comes to that. His secret chamber of horrors from last episode is feely revealed to Burnham in this one. When he tells Burnham he knows her, and that is why he's trusting the mutineer, the king-slayer, I want to believe him. The callous security chief died by the sword she lived by.
Here's something I really am curious if I'm right about, and, if I am, it's a spoiler: I don't think the cadet is who she appears to be. She's a great character, and is maybe doing loads for showcasing folks with special needs, but why would they room Starfleet's only ever, maximum security, mutineer with a cadet? I think she's Lorca's plant.
That's a good point, they do remind me of Russia more than Trump supporters, especially since remain Klingon is also consistent with their anti-globalist rhetoric. The entire war can be a metaphor for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Klingons are the agressors but they feel that they're being trapped by the incessant expansion of the EU/United Federation.
Actually, if I watch this show from this angle and forget that it was supposed to be StarTrek I might enjoy it more.
Ghouleddie74 said:
Bull. We'll be fat and long-lived. Think Wall-E. Or TOS's "Plato's Stepchildren."
TNG get's a lot of flack by a vocal demographic of Niners on this board, but it's still the show the fans and the masses look to judge and compare by because it's IMHO Trek at its best. Lord knows it had its issues, but the melodrama Niners revel in is as unrealistic as the naïveté they accuse TNG of. The point TNG was trying to make isn't that humans won't act humanly in the future because some EP's trying to make a family friendly show, but that they'll try to act more humanly in the way we do compared to less civilized if just as human cavemen, millennia ago. People who would jump and murder at the sight of strangers, never mind form sophisticated, now global, communities with them.
That may be hard to dramatize -- what would different, hopefully better, people of the future be like -- but it's a whole Heaven of a lot more hopeful and realistic than suggesting the "future" will be contemporary humans with unlimited powers. We don't make it in the future. Who we might have been do.
Star Trek is one of the biggest TV franchise in history and it's a trend setters. Many TV shows have been influenced by Star Trek. There's always a danger for Star Trek (or any popular Hollywood TV/movie) to fall back to the lower common denominator and provide as much depth in the story-lines and dialogues than Michael Bay's summer blockbuster movie. Star Trek must be at the front by being deeper, have more meaning for us and people watching it. If not, it's only using the name Star Trek as a marketing tool. For name recognition. Maybe it will work as being as popular as Michael Bay's next movie (maybe not), but we will miss the thing that made Star Trek distinctive and great.
As long as it's not a ploy by Hollywood for Star Trek to turn into the lowest common denominator type of entertainment. Those are all fine. But Star Trek is different and bigger than this.
I think, Discovery is great but lately (because of Discovery) I've got my hand on remastered TNG episodes. I had no idea they were so beautiful. I feel like I'm the last guy to the party. Sorry, I couldn't come before 1am. You can see much more details and it look stunning in HD. It feel like I'm watching them for the first time or at least re-watching them for the first time.
As I said, in the episode thread, I've watched a few random TNG episodes those last few days (The Chase, Suspicions and Rightful Heir) and you can immediately see how much more depth the dialogues have and dramatic moment TNG brings to the table. Even Picard having to face his career choice and his young self dreams and plan to become an archeologist brought a lot of depth and it was just a side story. Gowron dialogues with Picard, as he got to the ship was great too. I know many people on the internet view them as episodic but I always felt episodes like those brought a lot of depth and knowledge about the Star Trek universe. The Chase obviously add a lot to the Star Trek universe. Suspicions bring a lot to Dr Crusher and also to the Star Trek universe in how those scientists interact. We get to know the Cardassian, Klingons, Ferengi better. Rightful Heir add depth to Worf while we learn more about the Klingons. I never felt TNG was only episodic, every episodes were about particular events and situations, something I love (faster/better plot, more originality to each episodes, less boring slow pace moments, less day time soap opera moments), but they always brought more depth and knowledge about the Star Trek universe and various characters. It always felt like they were part of the whole (same with series like Doctor Who, Stargate, Sliders, etc).
I was actually just watching the very same TNG episodes and was reminded of why I'm underwhelmed by STD. I was completely drawn into every story and even side story, I cared for the characters, I related to Picard having not pursued archaeology as a discipline and the dilemma he was facing. Even the artifact gift added considerable depth to the episode. Are the remastered episodes available online? I don't think netflix or cbsaa is streaming them in HD.
Memory Alpha uses DIS
You say Discovery, fine, like you do Enterprise or Voyager.
You may say D-S-9, or T-N-G, but no one says V-O-Y or E-N-T.
To myself, I’ll sometimes say Voy or Ent as I’m typing them, but, in discussion, it’s always the whole word. TOS/TNG/DS9 get a pass because they’re acronyms of multiple words, not just abbreviations of a single one.
For DSC, I’ll say what sounds like d’sk or disc. Or say out DSC “dee’e’see.” But again, that’s while reading/writing.
I’m fine with DIS/dis/disco and other variants. So long as we’re all being civil.
It's specifically because I'm used to using the acronyms of multiple words that I say STD, disc just sounds awkward to me. It's Star Trek, T-N-G, D-S-9, Voyager, Enterprise, STD/Discovery
